Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description still adds value by specifying the DEX coverage set, the 'unspent in the ledger right now' freshness condition, and the return fields, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or behavior for wallets with no open orders.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by a short exclusion clause. Every clause carries information, though the mid-sentence parenthetical and long field enumeration make it heavier than it needs to be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations covering safety, a fully documented one-parameter schema, and no output schema to explain, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: covered DEXes, ledger freshness semantics, returned fields, and the sibling to use for out-of-scope orders.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `address` parameter has a documented pattern and mainnet constraint, so the schema does the work. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., that the address must be the same wallet whose orders are wanted), which lands it at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource (swap orders of a wallet that are still pending) and scopes it precisely to Minswap V2, SundaeSwap V3 and WingRiders V2, plus enumerates the data returned (DEX, pool, amount sold, minimum receive, timestamp). The listing verb is carried by the name/title rather than the description text, so it stops just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit exclusion — 'Orders waiting at other DEXes are not listed' — and routes the agent to the correct alternative, `get_swap_status`, for that case. Nothing about when to pick this tool over its sibling is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.